On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:18:28PM +0100, m0viefreak wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 10:59:04AM +, Holger Dietze wrote:
>>I have searched the man page and the Cygwin projects, but did not found
>>a way to get this working.
>
>Cygwin uses a custom ps program that can also handle windows processe
> But if it works it at least a workaround.
And it works:
$ procps
PID TTY TIME CMD
18124 pty1 00:00:00 procps
4112 pty1 00:00:01 bash
$ procps -p 4112 -o pid= -o comm=
4112 bash
Thank you.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: h
Hi,
> The version you are looking for is available from the procps package.
> The ps binary is also named "procps".
thank you, I will check this.
It is a bit un-comfortable to check the OS where my scripts are running
to use a different ps-binary.
But if it works it at least a workaround.
--
> I have searched the man page and the Cygwin projects, but did not found a way
> to get
> this working.
Cygwin uses a custom ps program that can also handle windows processes
but which does not support all those options.
The version you are looking for is available from the procps package.
The
Hello,
I am writing some scripts for linux and cygwin. To find out, if
a given pid (from /var/run/ is really the pid of the
correct process I use the ps command on linux (and AIX, Solaris,
even HPUX with a trick) with the option -o pid=
Example:
# ps -ef | grep bash
root 1118 1112 0 11
On 3/28/2011 13:04, Antha Lamus wrote:
> Hi all,
> I recently installed a newer version of bash and now the "ps" command
> does not issue anything anymore (return code is 128). in fact, even
> the options seem different as I don't see "-W" in the man any
Hi all,
I recently installed a newer version of bash and now the "ps" command
does not issue anything anymore (return code is 128). in fact, even
the options seem different as I don't see "-W" in the man anymore.
also, I can pretty much issue anything I wa
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:14:20, Paul McFerrin wrote:
>
> Is there a way to get "ps" to display more on the COMMAND column?
Use the "procps" command instead. It works like the "ps" command on
Linux. For example I use the following command:
procps -e -o user,
Paul McFerrin wrote on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:14 PM:
> Is there a way to get "ps" to display more on the COMMAND column?
Doesn't look like it. But try
$ pstree -a
$ procps -f
$ procps -F
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwi
Is there a way to get "ps" to display more on the COMMAND column?
It appears to display only argv[0] and none of the others. So when
executing ksh scripts, they all show up as "ksh". Or if you have
multiple executions of a single command, it makes it hard to identify
which one you want to ki
On May 22 12:29, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> The Cygwin ps allows to watch Windows processes also (with -W). Is
> that possible for procps, too?
procps uses /proc to retrieve process information. Non-Cygwin processes
don't show up in /proc.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, se
* Brian Dessent (Mon, 21 May 2007 22:34:50 -0700)
> Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
> > because qseek is a perl script. Is there any way that I can get output
> > of the running processes that will include the text, 'qseek'? Or can
> > anyone suggest a work around. I need a script to be able to find out
>
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:34:50PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
>
> > because qseek is a perl script. Is there any way that I can get output
> > of the running processes that will include the text, 'qseek'? Or can
> > anyone suggest a work around. I need a script to be ab
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
> because qseek is a perl script. Is there any way that I can get output
> of the running processes that will include the text, 'qseek'? Or can
> anyone suggest a work around. I need a script to be able to find out
> whether qseek is running, in order to start it if it is
Apologies for asking this. I asked it many years ago and did not get an
answer that allowed me to progress. I can not find the earlier replies
but of course cygwin has improved since then.
I have a program that runs in the background a bit like at daemon. It is
called 'qseek'. I want to know wheth
On Tue, 1 May 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> All,
> Thanks for your replies.
>
> > An alternative would be to parse /proc/PID/cmdline.
>
> I think I'll use Tony's solution, as I don't have pstree available on my
> "development" or "live" Cygwin installation. This would be quicker as I can
> use
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 10:41:19AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> An alternative would be to parse /proc/PID/cmdline.
>I think I'll use Tony's solution, as I don't have pstree available on my
>"development" or "live" Cygwin installation. This would be quicker as I can
>use it straight "out of
All,
Thanks for your replies.
> An alternative would be to parse /proc/PID/cmdline.
I think I'll use Tony's solution, as I don't have pstree available on my
"development" or "live" Cygwin installation. This would be quicker as I can
use it straight "out of the box".
I was looking for exactly s
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Dave Korn wrote:
On 30 April 2007 19:23, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Anyway, since the information is
available, and most other *nix's 'ps' provides it, any reason Cygwin's
'ps' shouldn't do the same?
I believe you can probably guess the answer to this one...
particularly
Dave Korn wrote:
On 30 April 2007 19:23, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Dave Korn wrote:
On 30 April 2007 18:48, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
um... and since Cygwin has this information, doesn't this mean that 'ps'
is missing a feature that is standard to pretty much every other *nix
implementation of 'ps
On 30 April 2007 19:23, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 30 April 2007 18:48, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>
>>> um... and since Cygwin has this information, doesn't this mean that 'ps'
>>> is missing a feature that is standard to pretty much every other *nix
>>> implementation of 'ps'?
Dave Korn wrote:
On 30 April 2007 18:48, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
um... and since Cygwin has this information, doesn't this mean that 'ps'
is missing a feature that is standard to pretty much every other *nix
implementation of 'ps'? (I don't have a POSIX standard handy
Yes you do: open brows
On 30 April 2007 18:48, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> um... and since Cygwin has this information, doesn't this mean that 'ps'
> is missing a feature that is standard to pretty much every other *nix
> implementation of 'ps'? (I don't have a POSIX standard handy
Yes you do: open browser, google "pos
Tony Richardson wrote:
Andy Jet-Net jet-net.co.uk> writes:
In "ps -s" I get something like:
PID TTYSTIME COMMAND
1234 con 09:00:00 /path/program
Is there a way of doing this through ps (or an alternative) in Cygwin?
An alternative would be to parse /proc/PID/cmdline. Arguments are
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm trying to get parameters entered at the Cygwin command line to
> appear on my ps command, and failing miserably!
>
> i.e. I'm running the following process at the command line:
>
> program paramet
Andy Jet-Net jet-net.co.uk> writes:
> In "ps -s" I get something like:
>
> PID TTYSTIME COMMAND
> 1234 con 09:00:00 /path/program
>
> Is there a way of doing this through ps (or an alternative) in Cygwin?
An alternative would be to parse /proc/PID/cmdline. Arguments are
separated by nu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to get parameters entered at the Cygwin command line to appear on
my ps command, and failing miserably!
i.e. I'm running the following process at the command line:
program parameter1
In "ps -s" I get something like:
PID
On 30 April 2007 12:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm trying to get parameters entered at the Cygwin command line to appear on
> my ps command, and failing miserably!
> Is there a way of doing this through ps (or an alternative) in Cygwin?
If it doesn't
Hi all,
I'm trying to get parameters entered at the Cygwin command line to appear on
my ps command, and failing miserably!
i.e. I'm running the following process at the command line:
program parameter1
In "ps -s" I get something like:
PID TTYSTIME COMMAND
1234
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:55:53 -0400 (EDT), Igor Pechtchanski
> According to the "ps.cc" source (which, at the moment, seems to be the
> best documentation for the status column)
Thanks Igor. The official documentation is now being updated to
include this information...
--
Unsubscribe info: h
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Shaffer, Kenneth wrote:
> I recently ran the ps command and saw an unknown flag, "I", displayed in
> column 1. There was no heading above it and the man page wasn't much
> help.
>
> What does this mean? Where can I find documentation on per
I recently ran the ps command and saw an unknown flag, "I", displayed in
column 1. There was no heading above it and the man page wasn't much
help.
What does this mean? Where can I find documentation on perhaps other
flags?
--
Ken Shaffer
- - - - - - - Appended by Sci
--On Wednesday, April 10, 2002 2:39 PM +1000 Robert Collins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > What is the 'System process'?
>>
>> Look at the output from the Task Manager.
>
> Sure, there's no 'System process'. Do you mean the
> 'System Idle process' aka the scheduler?
>
> Rob
No, it's a separ
--On Wednesday, April 10, 2002 12:23 AM -0400 Christopher Faylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:59:08PM -0400, Alan Dobkin wrote:
>> I don't intend to submit a patch for this either, at least not
>> any time soon, but I would be happy to provide information and
>> testi
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 2:24 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: ps command - revisited
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:03:15PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
&g
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 02:03:15PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Alan Dobkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:59 PM
>
>>Similarly, the System process should be identified as such instead of
>>unknown.
>
>What is the 'System proc
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:59:08PM -0400, Alan Dobkin wrote:
>>The functionality you see now is all that I plan on providing.
>>
>>Patches are, as always, gratefully accepted, however.
>
>I don't intend to submit a patch for this either, at least not any time
>soon, but I would be happy to provide
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Dobkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:59 PM
> Similarly,
> the System process should be identified as such instead of unknown.
What is the 'System process'?
Rob
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsub
--On Tuesday, April 09, 2002 11:08 PM -0400 Christopher Faylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As with so many other things in Cygwin, what you see is what
> you get from the underlying Windows API that we're using. If
> certain processes aren't showing up when we say "give me all
> of your proc
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 10:59:36PM -0400, Alan Dobkin wrote:
>I don't know why Chris's process isn't showing up, but I can attest to
>the fact that all Windows processes, including those associated with
>services *do* appear in the ps -W output, with only two exceptions: the
>System Idle Process (
April 09, 2002 7:28 PM -0400 Christopher Faylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:17:42PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Hi all, specially Corinna,
>>
>> Corinna, maybe you can help out here. The UNIX ps command reports all and
>> ev
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:17:42PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hi all, specially Corinna,
>
>Corinna, maybe you can help out here. The UNIX ps command reports all and
>every process running on the machine, the Windows (cygwin) ps command
>however, omits WinNT/Win2K ser
TECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 23:44
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: ps command - revisited
>
> Been there, done that - that's not it. I can see this process in 'Task
> Manager':
> admsrvc.exe, pid=508, it's runn
. In my search for a utility which does, I came across an
article about cygwin's ps command which explicitly states that it's not a
complete implementation. And yes, I have read the man pages, and I am aware
of the W option .. *sigh* ... ;-).
Best regards,
Chris
> -Original Message--
*sigh* RTFM.
ps -Wef
-rgm
At 05:17 PM 04.09.2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi all, specially Corinna,
>
>Corinna, maybe you can help out here. The UNIX ps command reports all and
>every process running on the machine, the Windows (cygwin) ps command
>however, omits WinNT/Win2K
Hi all, specially Corinna,
Corinna, maybe you can help out here. The UNIX ps command reports all and
every process running on the machine, the Windows (cygwin) ps command
however, omits WinNT/Win2K services, which is something we would like to
have working. Would it be possible to extent the
46 matches
Mail list logo
